Bruce Nathan Ames - Paradigm shifts inside the cancer research revolution.

Dr. Bruce Ames turned 92 on December 16, 2020. He considers his most recent work linking adequate consumption of 30 known vitamins and minerals with successful aging to be his most important contribution. With the passage of time, it is not uncommon for the accomplishments of a well-known scientist to undergo a parsimonious reductionism in the public mind - Pasteur's vaccine, Mendel's peas, Pavlov's dogs, Ames' test. Those of us in the research generation subsequent to Dr. Ames' are undoubtedly affected by our own unconscious tendencies toward accepting the outstanding achievements of the past as commonplace. In doing so, seminal advances made by earlier investigators are often inadvertently subsumed into common knowledge. But having followed Ames' work since the mid-1970s, we are cognizant that the eponymous Ames Test is but a single chapter in a long and rich narrative. That narrative begins with Ames' classic studies on the histidine operon of Salmonella, for which he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. A summary of the historical progression of the understanding of chemical carcinogenesis to which Ames and his colleagues contributed is provided. Any summary of a topic as expansive and complex as the ongoing unraveling of the mechanisms underlying chemical carcinogenesis will only touch upon some of the major conceptual advances to which Ames and his colleagues contributed. We hope that scientists of all ages familiar with Ames only through the eponymous Ames Test will further investigate the historical progression of the conceptualization of cancer caused by chemical exposure. As the field of chemical carcinogenesis gradually moves away from primary reliance on animal testing to alternative protocols under the rubric of New Approach Methodologies (NAM) an understanding of where we have been might help to guide where we should go.

A primer on systematic reviews in toxicology.

Systematic reviews, pioneered in the clinical field, provide a transparent, methodologically rigorous and reproducible means of summarizing the available evidence on a precisely framed research question. Having matured to a well-established approach in many research fields, systematic reviews are receiving increasing attention as a potential tool for answering toxicological questions. In the larger framework of evidence-based toxicology, the advantages and obstacles of, as well as the approaches for, adapting and adopting systematic reviews to toxicology are still being explored. To provide the toxicology community with a starting point for conducting or understanding systematic reviews, we herein summarized available guidance documents from various fields of application. We have elaborated on the systematic review process by breaking it down into ten steps, starting with planning the project, framing the question, and writing and publishing the protocol, and concluding with interpretation and reporting. In addition, we have identified the specific methodological challenges of toxicological questions and have summarized how these can be addressed. Ultimately, this primer is intended to stimulate scientific discussions of the identified issues to fuel the development of toxicology-specific methodology and to encourage the application of systematic review methodology to toxicological issues.

FutureTox III: Bridges for Translation.

Future Tox III, a Society of Toxicology Contemporary Concepts in Toxicology workshop, was held in November 2015. Building upon Future Tox I and II, Future Tox III was focused on developing the high throughput risk assessment paradigm and taking the science of in vitro data and in silico models forward to explore the question-what progress is being made to address challenges in implementing the emerging big-data toolbox for risk assessment and regulatory decision-making. This article reports on the outcome of the workshop including 2 examples of where advancements in predictive toxicology approaches are being applied within Federal agencies, where opportunities remain within the exposome and AOP domains, and how collectively the toxicology community across multiple sectors can continue to bridge the translation from historical approaches to Tox21 implementation relative to risk assessment and regulatory decision-making.

Lessons from Toxicology: Developing a 21st-Century Paradigm for Medical Research.

Biomedical developments in the 21st century provide an unprecedented opportunity to gain a dynamic systems-level and human-specific understanding of the causes and pathophysiologies of disease. This understanding is a vital need, in view of continuing failures in health research, drug discovery, and clinical translation. The full potential of advanced approaches may not be achieved within a 20th-century conceptual framework dominated by animal models. Novel technologies are being integrated into environmental health research and are also applicable to disease research, but these advances need a new medical research and drug discovery paradigm to gain maximal benefits. We suggest a new conceptual framework that repurposes the 21st-century transition underway in toxicology. Human disease should be conceived as resulting from integrated extrinsic and intrinsic causes, with research focused on modern human-specific models to understand disease pathways at multiple biological levels that are analogous to adverse outcome pathways in toxicology. Systems biology tools should be used to integrate and interpret data about disease causation and pathophysiology. Such an approach promises progress in overcoming the current roadblocks to understanding human disease and successful drug discovery and translation. A discourse should begin now to identify and consider the many challenges and questions that need to be solved.

Lessons learned, challenges, and opportunities: the U.S. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.

In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act and amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement a screening program to investigate the potential of pesticide chemicals and drinking water contaminants to adversely affect endocrine pathways. Consequently, the EPA launched the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) to develop and validate estrogen, androgen, and thyroid (EAT) pathway screening assays and to produce standardized and harmonized test guidelines for regulatory application. In 2009, the EPA issued the first set of test orders for EDSP screening and a total of 50 pesticide actives and 2 inert ingredients have been evaluated using the battery of EDSP Tier 1 screening assays (i.e., five in vitro assays and six in vivo assays). To provide a framework for retrospective analysis of the data generated and to collect the insight of multiple stakeholders involved in the testing, more than 240 scientists from government, industry, academia, and non-profit organizations recently participated in a workshop titled "Lessons Learned, Challenges, and Opportunities: The U.S. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program." The workshop focused on the science and experience to date and was organized into three focal sessions: (a) Performance of the EDSP Tier 1 Screening Assays for Estrogen, Androgen, and Thyroid Pathways; (b) Practical Applications of Tier 1 Data; and (c) Indications and Opportunities for Future Endocrine Testing. A number of key learnings and recommendations related to future EDSP evaluations emanated from the collective sessions.

Perspectives on validation of high-throughput assays supporting 21st century toxicity testing.

In vitro high-throughput screening (HTS) assays are seeing increasing use in toxicity testing. HTS assays can simultaneously test many chemicals but have seen limited use in the regulatory arena, in part because of the need to undergo rigorous, time-consuming formal validation. Here we discuss streamlining the validation process, specifically for prioritization applications. By prioritization, we mean a process in which less complex, less expensive, and faster assays are used to prioritize which chemicals are subjected first to more complex, expensive, and slower guideline assays. Data from the HTS prioritization assays is intended to provide a priori evidence that certain chemicals have the potential to lead to the types of adverse effects that the guideline tests are assessing. The need for such prioritization approaches is driven by the fact that there are tens of thousands of chemicals to which people are exposed, but the yearly throughput of most guideline assays is small in comparison. The streamlined validation process would continue to ensure the reliability and relevance of assays for this application. We discuss the following practical guidelines: (1) follow current validation practice to the extent possible and practical; (2) make increased use of reference compounds to better demonstrate assay reliability and relevance; (3) de-emphasize the need for cross-laboratory testing; and (4) implement a web-based, transparent, and expedited peer review process.

Evidence-based toxicology for the 21st century: opportunities and challenges.

The Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC) was established recently to translate evidence-based approaches from medicine and health care to toxicology in an organized and sustained effort. The EBTC held a workshop on "Evidence-based Toxicology for the 21st Century: Opportunities and Challenges" in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA on January 24-25, 2012. The presentations largely reflected two EBTC priorities: to apply evidence-based methods to assessing the performance of emerging pathway-based testing methods consistent with the 2007 National Research Council report on "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century" as well as to adopt a governance structure and work processes to move that effort forward. The workshop served to clarify evidence-based approaches and to provide food for thought on substantive and administrative activities for the EBTC. Priority activities include conducting pilot studies to demonstrate the value of evidence-based approaches to toxicology, as well as conducting educational outreach on these approaches.